Courts and Tribunals Bill

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Time and again, for more than a year now, Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and told the House that their attack on jury trials was essential to making the courts work efficiently. Time and again we told them that they were wrong, and so did more than 100 of their colleagues on the Government Benches. We said that the right to a trial by jury is an ancient English right—a vital part of our national inheritance and a necessary safeguard against the might of the state.

Ministers ignored us and said that we did not understand. They briefed against their colleagues and, in the case of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), they smeared him disgracefully. Now they admit that they were wrong and we were right. All those Ministers and Labour MPs who stuck to the Government line in the face of all the evidence should reflect on the limits of blind party allegiance and following the instructions of their Whips. It makes them look very foolish today.

I remind the Courts Minister in particular of our exchange in the House in June. When I told her that the incoming leader of the Labour party, now the Prime Minister, was going to scrap her prized policy, she told the House that I misunderstood his position. She said that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) did not in fact oppose their assault on jury trials. Yet here they are, with their policy largely abandoned, and her authority as Courts Minister lies in pieces.

Like Monty Python’s Black Knight, the Courts Minister declared in June, “I move for no man.” As her policy lost one limb, she insisted it was but a scratch. As it lost another, she claimed it was just a flesh wound. Now that the Bill is left completely dismembered, she has gone from insisting, “I am invincible,” to finally saying, “All right, we’ll call it a draw.” But it is not a draw; it is a very serious defeat, and it is a victory for our constitutional settlement, our rights under the Crown and the sacred principle that no one shall be convicted and deprived of their liberty except by a jury of their peers.

This was a battle that should never have been fought. In the last year, 17,601 sitting days were lost because Crown courtrooms sat empty. On average, about 16% of Crown courts are not sitting on any given day. We have repeatedly called on the Government to get the courts sitting throughout the year. That is how they should cut backlogs, not by attacking juries.

I said that the attack on juries had been largely abandoned, but the Government have not completely given up. There remain serious problems with the Bill, which will remove the right of defendants to elect a jury in either-way cases and increase the sentencing power of magistrates courts so that more cases are heard there. However, the magistrates backlog has reached 380,000 open cases—a 9% increase on the previous year. The Government have not told us what additional resources will be given to magistrates to manage the increase in workload, nor what new safeguards will ensure justice. Indeed, there has been no assessment of the likely effect of the change on appeal rates. We know that of appeals against verdicts given by magistrates, up to 56% are allowed.

The Bill will also remove juries from what it calls complex and lengthy trials, which are normally said to be cases involving fraud. The independent reviewer of fraud, Jonathan Fisher KC, concluded that there was no justification for the change. But clause 4 does not only concern fraud trials; the Government seek to extend the scope of judge-only trials to other complex cases in later years by secondary legislation. That would give them the power to resume their attack on jury trials without proper scrutiny or debate. The proposal is a disgrace and we reject it emphatically.

The Bill as amended will also establish a review of the court system with a specific remit to consider inequality of outcome based on racial identity. Once again, the Labour party is trying to engineer judicial outcomes based on identity rather than treating us all as free individuals accountable before the law. The Opposition will resist that and stand for the principle that it is only our actions that matter, not who and what we are.

Opposition Members are committed to the ancient right to trial by jury, but while the principle of jury trials is sacrosanct, there is increasing evidence from recent cases that juries may, in some examples, have been compromised by the political or religious bias of some jury members. We have seen the acquittal of violent thugs, including the man who smashed a female police officer’s spine apparently because he was a member of Palestine Action. We have seen vandals from Just Stop Oil found not guilty despite clear evidence of their guilt.

Many in the legal profession are concerned that this is an increasing trend in courts across the country. If those who break our laws walk free because jurors feel kinship towards them or because the cause for which the defendant committed a crime is just, justice is no longer blind. That flies in the face of the rule of law. It must be stopped.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that many in the legal profession are sounding the alarm about the perceived bias of juries. Will he please state which legal organisations have expressed that view to him?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy]

Had the hon. Lady listened, she would have heard that I said individual barristers—I did not say organisations. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] The Justice Secretary and others ought to listen to those professionals who experience the justice system every day.

The Government’s handling of the Bill has been a shambles from start to finish. It still contains dangerous provisions that limit the right to elect and to appeal, and that allow Ministers to attack jury trials by secondary legislation and put more cases through the magistrates court. We will vote to reject the Bill to preserve equality before the law and the right to a fair trial.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Prisoner Early Release Scheme

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the early release scheme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. In July 2024, men’s prisons were operating at 99% capacity. At one point, fewer than 100 places were available across the male estate. Without intervention, we risked running out of prison places, leaving courts unable to sentence offenders and police unable to make arrests.

This Government have acted to increase capacity and to reform sentencing. We have committed to delivering 14,000 prison places by 2031 and have already delivered 3,200. The last Government added just 500 net places in their time in office. We have also accelerated the removal of foreign national offenders, returning around 11,700 to their countries of origin. It is in that context that we launched the independent sentencing review in October 2024 and subsequently passed the Sentencing Act 2026 earlier this year to place the prison system on a more sustainable footing and ensure that space is always available for the most dangerous offenders. The Act also aimed to avoid the chaotic emergency release schemes carried out with little scrutiny or warning by the Conservatives.

However, we know that aspects of these changes have caused concern, and we are determined to do the right thing for victims. That is why the Government listened to the concerns raised, paused the implementation of the progression model and conducted an urgent review. As the Lord Chancellor confirmed in this House on 1 September, in addition to the 18,000 dangerous offenders already ineligible for the progression model, this Government have excluded rape and serious child sex offences from eligibility for changes to release dates under the Sentencing Act. Unlawful killings, including manslaughter, causing or allowing the death of a child, and death by dangerous driving, are also excluded, as well as indecent assault, ensuring that more historical child sex offences prosecuted under older laws are treated consistently with equivalent offences today. That means that hundreds more dangerous criminals will be staying behind bars for longer, including those who killed PC Andrew Harper in the line of duty.

The first releases on the progression model took place on 1 October, with His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service working closely with operational partners to ensure that eligible offenders were released safely into the community. As the second tranche of releases begins today, robust arrangements remain in place to manage releases, support probation practitioners and supervising offenders, and ensure that those subject to electronic monitoring requirements are fitted with a tag. As part of the supervision of offenders released into the community, HMPPS will maintain rigorous oversight of those on licence, with measures in place to recall those who are non-compliant.

We recognise the significant effect that release date changes can have on victims. We will ensure that those in the victim contact scheme who are affected by the new exclusions are informed if there are any changes to the release date of the offender in their case. I have also instructed my officials to attempt to contact victims not in that scheme to provide information, should they wish for that to happen. We have launched the victim support offender release helpline, with nearly £19 million of additional funding, to provide victims with emotional support, practical advice such as safety planning, and general information about sentencing changes.

It is important to add that the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending is unable to be here today because she is currently speaking with governors about early release and how the implementation of the progression model is going.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Nick Timothy]

Two weeks ago, 700 prisoners were released from prison across the country, and today a further 650 will be released, most after serving just one third of their sentence. The Justice Secretary told the country that proper safeguards would be put in place, with a presumption that all released prisoners would be tagged. He called it the “toughest” tagging regime in history, but that was nonsense. Four days after the first release, the Justice Secretary admitted that he had no idea how many released prisoners had been tagged, and protested that it was unreasonable to expect him to know how many had been tagged so soon into the scheme. I have some advice for him and his Ministers: it is better to work out how to implement your policy before it starts, not after.

We know that a majority of prisoners are not being tagged before release, and we know that reoffending is already off the charts. The Met says that there have been 100 tag breaches in London each day since Labour’s first early release scheme began, while two or three prisoners released early are being re-arrested every week. I do not want to hear the same old lines from the Minister about prison building, though I note he has changed his tune since the Prime Minister took office in July. Since the election, not a single new prison development has been planned or approved—those were the Minister’s words in a written answer. The only new prison opened was begun under the last Government, and prison places are unused because officer numbers are down under Labour.

Can the Minister tell us very clearly the answers to the following three questions? How many prisoners released so far have and have not been tagged? How many tag breaches by released prisoners have there been? If he does not know the answers to those questions, when will the Justice Secretary and his team find out and tell the House of Commons?

[Jake Richards]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s questions. I noticed over conference recess that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), who I think is the Conservatives’ policy chief, apologised for the lack of investment and action on criminal justice over 14 years of Conservative Governments. It would be welcome to hear that from the Dispatch Box today, but alas, we will still have to wait for that apology.

Turning to the hon. Member’s questions, we have set out the numbers of prisoners who will be released in each tranche—that is publicly available on the Government’s website. We will be setting out data in relation to prisoner releases as we always do, and the next batch of data will be released in January of next year. This is a new sentencing regime, and it is right that we release the data in the appropriate way, as we have always done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Upon taking office, the Prime Minister promised to

“find ways of not reducing access to jury trial.”

He said that jury trials are a

“linchpin of a fair society.”

Now that we know the Courts and Tribunals Bill will return to the House on 13 October, immediately after the recess, can the Justice Secretary guarantee that the Bill will not reduce access to jury trials at all?

[Alex Norris]

The shadow Secretary of State seeks to run ahead of the process that is going on at the moment. It is very important that Parliament has the opportunity to consider this really important legislation in the spirit that he talks about, and we have now reached Second Reading. I have been in this place for nine years, and legislation very rarely looks the same at the beginning of the process as it does at the end. My offer to him, and indeed to colleagues from across the House, is to engage in the conversation. If they have concerns and wish to see things changed, let us have that conversation.

[Nick Timothy]

I asked the Justice Secretary to rule out reducing access to jury trials, and the House will have noticed that he did not do that. We are not talking about something insignificant; we are talking about an ancient English right dating back to Magna Carta. As with Labour’s early release disaster, the new Prime Minister told everybody he did not like it and would not do it, but he never got round to working out what to do instead. Once again, the Justice Secretary has made much of his desire to work together constructively—although I have not seen much of it in our correspondence—so will he publish the full details of the new plan now, or does he still not know what it is?

[Alex Norris]

This is interesting: the Opposition do not know how to deal with either the new Prime Minister or the new Government. When we talk about wanting to improve things in the collective interest of the country, we mean it. The hon. Gentleman offers to be my correspondence secretary, but I do not think that is quite the answer.

[Nick Timothy]

You’ve ignored letters all summer!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is quite serious, and I am getting a little bit fed up of this carrying on at the Dispatch Box. Ask a question and respect the answer, because I expect Ministers to listen to the questions—it works both ways. This is becoming a habit, and I do not want it to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

This summer, the Government held five different positions on early release in just six weeks. In seeking to exclude killers, rapists and paedophiles—something the Government previously claimed was impossible—the Justice Secretary has used secondary legislation. He says:

“No further legislation is required in the short term…primary legislation will…be considered when Parliamentary time allows.”

Will the Secretary of State guarantee that after relying on secondary legislation to change Labour’s early release scheme, no prisoner will successfully challenge their exclusion in the courts?

[Alex Norris]

Yes, I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I have no concerns in that regard. The device we used was the commencement order. We chose to commence the provisions for some offences, but not for others. The point I was making to him in writing was that for parliamentarians it is discomfiting to have things lying on the statute book that are not intended for use, so it is good practice to remove them. It would not be without precedent for many provisions to be on the statute book without being turned on; nevertheless, that is what I was referring to in respect of further legislation. I am confident in our legal position.

[Nick Timothy]

The Justice Secretary proposes to let another set of dangerous criminals out of prison as well. Every prisoner serving an imprisonment for public protection sentence has been assessed to be too dangerous for release or returned to prison because of their behaviour—last year, there were 426 of them. The Justice Secretary has reiterated his commitment today to ending IPP sentences by the end of this Parliament. Will he tell the House very clearly if he has decided that it is, indeed, safe to release every single one of them?

[Alex Norris]

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a champion of individual liberty, and I understand him to be someone who believes in the equal application of liberty for individuals too. He must, surely, share my discomfort that there are individuals with tariffs of 18 months who have served 18 years on those sentences. This has been a matter of consensus for a long period of time; that is why his colleagues, when in government, discontinued those sentences. That is not to say that it is easy. In exactly the spirit in which he says that it must be done safely, my commitment is to do that with him and with colleagues across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I absolutely recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. We have a review ongoing into these issues within prisons, led by Amber Rudd, and we will continue to ensure that we have the deterrence, to stop drugs getting in, and that the right actions are taken when they do.

[Nick Timothy]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In oral questions just now, the Justice Secretary stood there and said again that he wanted to work collaboratively, and he invited the House to scrutinise the Government’s proposals on juries, but those are just words. This summer, as the Government constantly changed policy on early release, I wrote to him and the Prime Minister three times in July and twice in August, and received no reply until I got a short, dismissive reply last Thursday, by which point—[Interruption.] What are your guidelines? By that point, the policy had changed several times. Just now, the Secretary of State dismissed my question sarcastically, saying that he was not the correspondence secretary. That is not only disrespectful to the House; it is disrespectful to his correspondence secretary and may explain the delays—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think I have got the point. The hon. Gentleman is quite right; let us deal with the issues, and we will judge whether it was said sarcastically. Of course, he has never done such a thing himself—be careful about being in the greenhouse with a stone in hand!

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise the issue of correspondence. Whether it is the Prime Minister or anybody else, I expect that there should be a reply ASAP. The point has been made, those on the Front Bench have heard it, and I am sure that in future replies will be forthcoming. I will leave it at that for now.

Criminal Justice Reform

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I welcome the Justice Secretary to his place.

This is the Government’s fifth early release policy in just six weeks, since the Prime Minister took office. At every stage we were told that Ministers had no choice but to include dangerous criminals, because the alternative would be the “collapse” of the “entire system”. Now the plan is to stop one group of dangerous criminals leaving prison early by letting a different group of dangerous criminals out instead.

The Justice Secretary and the Prime Minister have justified the plan to release IPP prisoners as a matter of principle, but it is no such thing. It is a fag-packet policy written to get them out of this crisis. Last year a Justice Minister rejected it, saying it would “put the public at risk”. Some 1,415 IPP prisoners had to be recalled to prison after release. The Parole Board says that the rest—856 prisoners—are too dangerous to be freed. Despite the new exclusions, many violent criminals will still be released after one third of their sentence. That includes domestic abusers and some paedophiles.

The Justice Secretary says that if a domestic abuser breaches the terms of their release, tagging means that probation and the police will be alerted. He said this morning that these are “really good systems”, but most breaches result in no action at all. In fact, the Justice Secretary said this morning that early release is now “business as usual” and will go on for years to come. With that in mind, the Sentencing Act provides no end date to SDS33, so is this a permanent provision? If not, for how long does he think it should last? Can he rule out letting prisoners out even earlier with home detention curfews? Will he publish detailed capacity projections and all relevant data?

Will the Justice Secretary give us a timeline and a target for his promise to get more foreign national prisoners out of the country? What is his plan to overcome barriers to deportation caused by the European convention on human rights, and in particular unqualified rights such as articles 2 and 3? How many cells will be established within the existing estate by the end of 2026, 2027 and 2028? Will he release every IPP prisoner by the end of the Parliament, as suggested in the Ministry of Justice statement on Sunday? Will prisoners who would have received a life sentence, had IPP sentences not existed, remain locked up? Will the Justice Secretary rule out watering down the criteria used by the Parole Board to assess IPP prisoners? And can he confirm that the changes to early release will come through secondary legislation, presenting MPs with a false binary choice and no chance to amend their plan?

We have more than 700 fewer prison cells than last year and 1,600 fewer prison officers since the election. No new prisons have been planned or approved by this Government since the election. There are more than 4,000 operational available places and 4,000 more that are certified but out of use because of rules and regulations, officer shortages, and, in the case of Dartmoor prison, levels of radon gas that local residents live with every day. Describing the early release of criminals, a dangerous and irresponsible policy, as “business as usual” is not just an insult to victims, but a dereliction of duty.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for the shadow Secretary of State’s kind words of welcome. I do not know him well, but I know that he, like me, shares a love for this country and that everything he does is seen through that prism. My commitment to him is to work with him. There will be times, perhaps even including today, when we will need to disagree in the best traditions of this place, but I know there will be a lot that brings us together over the months and hopefully years to come.

On plans and changed plans, I make no apology—certainly not to the Opposition—for being able to grab hold of a system that, when we left here in July, was not going to exclude rape offences, child sex offences and those who have taken lives. We have now done that, which is good. I recognise that it has created uncertainty and I apologise to victims, but I hope they understand that it was done with noble purpose. We must now use the time available to make sure that victims get the right support, particularly when it comes to shaping restrictions on offenders if they do come out.

The hon. Gentleman mentions plans. The reality is that if we followed his plan, we would have a prison system that would be bust before Christmas. What would that mean for justice in this country? How could that be right? He jumps on the phrase “business as usual”. The point I am trying to make is that this Parliament has changed legislation. The Sentencing Act is the basis on which standard determinate sentences will be governed, and that will be the case for the foreseeable future. Linked to that, he talks about how the changes will come into force. That will be done via varying the commencement order. He talks about home detention. I can say that I have no intention of going any further. The work we have put in as a result of the Sentencing Act is our way of managing the pressure in the system.

On capacity, the hon. Gentleman asks for clarity. Well, I can provide a little bit of clarity: we should be clear that we have added 374 places in the adult male estate since the general election. Now, that is nowhere near where we want to get to as the end state—that is why our building programme has 14,000 places in it—but I would hope that wanting to do more is a point of shared interest. Of course, things do come in and out of the estate, including because of fire damage; I would not underestimate the importance of contamination either. Nevertheless, there will of course be significant places added in this Parliament and in our programme to 2031.

The hon. Gentleman also asks about the chance to scrutinise the data. He will know that, under the Sentencing Act, we are committed to publishing an annual report. That is what we will do, and I am sure that he and I will get into it at that point.

On foreign national offenders, if the hon. Gentleman has doubts, I will state my record to him and to the House. We have increased by 41% the removal of foreign offenders in this country. I gently say that that was my role in the Home Office, so he should not doubt my vigour. He mentions changes to article 3. He will know about the important work done on that at the Council of Europe. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), has done a lot of important work in that space. Similarly, our work on article 8 is important and I hope the hon. Gentleman will support that when it comes before Parliament. He should not doubt our vigour; as I say, we are already doing well better than his predecessors—they are sat next to him, so he can talk to them about that—and we will go further.

Let me finish on the IPP point, because I am really interested to see how it does and does not hold. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a champion of individual liberty and a sceptic of what he thinks is uneven justice. If I am able to make this acknowledgment, I hope he will at least reflect on it: there is a real dissatisfaction, as a result of the changes we have had to make, that some people will leave prison earlier than their sentence dictated, and that in many cases there will be people who are still there 10 years after. There is no easy solution to that. All I ask of him is to engage in a process to bring that to its resolution.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I was nine years old at the time of the Hillsborough tragedy, and I remember listening to the news of the terrible events on the radio, sitting behind my parents in the car. I was 32 when, while working in the Home Office, I received a copy of the report by the Hillsborough independent panel, which detailed the full horror of that terrible tragedy. In my time in the Home Office I saw many intelligence reports and papers about serious crimes and terror plots, but the Hillsborough report was undoubtedly the most shocking thing I read.

More than two decades passed between the tragedy itself and that moment of truth and transparency, and we can only imagine the pain felt by the victims and their families who fought for years for justice. I pay tribute to them and would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister. They have known grief and suffering none of us would ever wish to experience.

This is not a debate about the need for transparency. I am proud to have played a modest part in bringing that about when I worked in the Home Office. Nor is this a debate about the need for accountability. I have spent many years in different roles making the case for better police accountability and, indeed, working with those who lead and work in our security and intelligence agencies. They themselves would be the first to say—though their work is by definition often secret—that they need to be accountable. They are only citizens of this country, just like everyone else. I am sure that everyone here today agrees on the need for accountability.

The question is, how should this accountability work? Today we are considering one specific issue among several: is the proposal to extend the duty of candour to the intelligence agencies, the military, military intelligence, Counter Terrorism Policing and the National Crime Agency, which all necessarily work to some degree in secret, appropriate? Does it deliver accountability, and does it allow these sensitive services to do their work to the best of their abilities? Our job today is to consider that question and that question alone.

Of course, we may be informed by the trauma, pain and emotion that come from terrible tragedies—tragedies that have, in some instances, been compounded by undue secrecy and even outright dishonesty from the state itself—but it is our job in this place to get the law right, for if we do not, we may find ourselves back here in future debating another tragedy that could have been stopped had it not been for the unintended consequences of what we are debating today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The shadow Secretary of State will know, given his background working in the Home Office, that a duty of candour is not the same as the duty to disclose sensitive information. The two should not be conflated, and he should not be doing so on the Floor of the House.

[Nick Timothy]

I am confused by that intervention from the hon. Lady, who was the Minister in charge of this Bill. The argument I am making is consistent with the position she brought to the House in January, only to back down when it became controversial.

As I was saying, this could lead to intelligence that should, for good reasons, remain secret being published, which undermines the way the intelligence agencies and others work. We know this is a matter of grave concern for the agencies, the military and those in law enforcement because they have told us that. The Government know this, because the same people have told Ministers, and we know that the Government accepted this, because that was why they tabled the amendment in January, which they have since dropped.

Allied military and intelligence partners—most notably, the US and other Five Eyes partners—will look at what the Government are doing today and question what can be done to protect them and their methods. The Justice Secretary is once again not here today.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

Could the hon. Member point to current legislation that has a gap and does not give the protection to the intelligence services that we all wish to see?

[Nick Timothy]

I am not sure I follow the hon. Member’s question. If he wants to repeat it more clearly, I will happily listen.

[Derek Twigg]

The hon. Member is saying that the intelligence services are not protected under the current legislation. Could he say why?

[Nick Timothy]

The point is that this is a new duty, which is backed by criminal sanction, and that is why it is different from the status quo.

As I was saying, the Justice Secretary is a Privy Counsellor. He is the Deputy Prime Minister. He was once the Foreign Secretary—the man to whom MI6 and GCHQ were accountable. He knows that these sources of intelligence from allies are essential. They support our national interest, protect our way of life and save the lives of innocent people. Neither he nor the Minister can, hand on heart, stand here today and say that they know for sure that this Bill does not endanger that intelligence. Nobody can say that, because this Bill will change the behaviour, decisions and actions of those we ask to keep us safe, because it might change the terms of the relationships with our allies, and because we cannot anticipate the decisions made by individual heads of future investigations and inquiries.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that chairs of inquiries and inquests already have the power to hold closed sessions in private if they are looking at information that is sensitive or potentially poses a risk to our national security? That already exists, and the measures in the Bill do not impact that at all—it is already done on a daily basis in inquiries.

[Nick Timothy]

What the hon. Lady says is not entirely relevant to this proposition. This is about the provision of information to particular investigations and inquiries, and we do not know—indeed, we cannot know—the identities of the people who lead those investigations and inquiries. That is one of the reasons why this is such a step into the dark.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I used to be a prosecutor before coming to this place. We were able to find perfectly good ways of dealing with confidential sources of information—informants and others. There are procedures already in place for that.

[Nick Timothy]

We are sent here to scrutinise legislation. That is what we are doing. We have talked to people in the intelligence agencies, the police and others who are very concerned about this. The concerns that I am expressing were shared by Ministers themselves, which is why the amendment we are proposing today reflects the amendment that the Government themselves brought to the House in January.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

The interventions and the shadow Secretary of State’s responses are indicative of what he said earlier: we should not be discussing something as technically complex as this, which could have wide-reaching ramifications, with 24 hours’ notice and without any opportunity to have a proper discussion and raise these points.

[Nick Timothy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Prime Minister said this was going to be one of his first acts as Prime Minister; it turns out it is going to be his final act as Prime Minister. He is only doing it by the skin of his teeth, because he is presenting a proposal to the House that none of us got to see even this weekend, and those who had been drawn into the consultation process and had been privately consulted say that this bears no relation at all to what they have been shown, even very recently. The Government are clearly doing this on the hoof, and it is very worrying.

It is no exaggeration to say that some of those people who may be appointed to lead investigations and inquiries might be influenced or pressured by those whose purpose is the destruction of the British state and British sovereignty itself.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

The people who lead these inquiries are leading public figures and have usually held significant judicial office. Is the hon. Member honestly suggesting that they are going to be successfully pressured by people who want to destroy the British state?

[Nick Timothy]

I am tempted to say that the hon. Lady should have a conversation with the Attorney General, who used to prosecute British soldiers and was still appointed to one of the highest offices in the land.

Irish republicans, Islamist extremists, useful idiots deployed by Putin’s Russia—they will all see the opportunity in this law, as we know they have seen the opportunity in examples of lawfare fought elsewhere, including Northern Ireland. These are known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns. [Interruption.] There is an additional risk that the security services will be tied up in court cases, thanks to differing interpretations of the legislation, or that the scope of the Bill and the information that must be disclosed will be widened over time. I can hear sighs and complaints from Government Members, but they do not seem to understand that new laws—especially when they are to be taken in balance with existing laws—are tested in the courts, and their interpretation widens. That is a fact, and it is one of the concerns expressed by the intelligence agencies, the police and others. If Government Members think they are above listening to those people, I am very sorry about that.

There are questions, too, about the role of investigations and inquiries set up by the devolved Governments, including in Northern Ireland. I was alarmed by the Minister’s earlier answer to a question about the need to reveal information about intelligence agency sources in that context. These are the reasons that my party proposes an amendment, informed in part by the Government’s own proposed amendment back in January, to give control of secret material back to service leaders, who are rightly then accountable to elected Ministers, in not only the intelligence services but the armed forces, the National Crime Agency and counter-terrorism policing.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

One of the hon. Gentleman’s former colleagues went to Downing Street just a month ago with a letter that says he believes he was misled by his own Department when he was the Secretary of State for Defence, so why on earth is the hon. Gentleman arguing this particular case? If Defence Secretaries are misled by their Departments, I do not really understand his faith in leaders of intelligence services and others not being able to hide the truth purely to defend their own Departments.

[Nick Timothy]

I think the hon. Lady, whether it is by design or by mistake, misunderstands my point. Of course, there should be accountability and transparency, and there are many ways in which we can do that, but there are ways of doing it that do not jeopardise the operations of the most sensitive organisations in the country by revealing their sources, their methods and their technological capabilities.

There are also serious flaws in the proposals to create a new duty to prevent death or serious injury and the new crime of misleading the public. Senior police officers are concerned that the new duty will have a chilling effect on operations. Police officers may be deterred from taking vital split-second decisions to give chase or to restrain, for fear of being sued or charged, placing their careers and livelihoods in jeopardy. Those employed in other parts of the public sector, such as the welfare system or the health service, might also be affected. These measures also risk snarling up the police and others in time-consuming and costly litigation.

There is also a serious risk that the new crime of misleading the public could stifle legitimate political disagreement and debate, criminalise honest mistakes, or punish people for making statements that we only later learn are wrong when the facts change. That is why a lock on such prosecutions, with a requirement for the Attorney General to approve them, is absolutely essential, and we invite hon. Members to support our amendment to ensure that this evening.

Early Release of Prisoners

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to exempt from automatic early release under the provisions of the Sentencing Act 2026 any offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence against an adult or a child, including rape and grooming, or convicted of the attempt, conspiracy, or incitement to commit such offences; further calls on the Government to bring forward legislation to enact this change immediately; and regrets that the Conservative amendment to the Sentencing Act 2026 that would have secured these exemptions was not agreed to.

We gather for this important debate at a dangerous but very strange moment. It is dangerous because from September, the Government will start releasing serious criminals from prison part-way through their sentences. Among them, as things stand, will be many violent criminals, including killers, rapists and child sex offenders, because Labour and the Liberal Democrats voted against our amendment to exclude them from the early release scheme. Thanks to those Labour and Lib Dem votes, some of those released may be convicted members of the rape gangs.

Our position remains clear: not one of these dangerous, disgusting people should ever have been included in Labour’s early release scheme. It seems that the next leader of the Labour party—the next Prime Minister—disagrees with the Justice Secretary and with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards)—the sentencing Minister—and agrees with us. His people told the Sunday Times that he wants to prevent child sex offenders from walking free. They say that his advisers are working on primary legislation, but they also say that as the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is not taking office before the summer recess, they might not be able to act in time.

That is what is very strange about this dangerous moment. We have a Prime Minister squatting in Downing Street, holding on until the world cup final, recording videos in empty rooms about his achievements and legacy, and pretending that he will intervene to overturn Jarell Quansah’s red card, with no mandate, no purpose and no authority; and we have the next Prime Minister—indeed, the only candidate to become Prime Minister—saying that he disagrees with what the Government whom he is due to lead will do this September, but that he lacks the time or the power to do anything about it. That is pathetic. The House is sitting this week and next before the summer recess; there is plenty of time to act. The Government could amend the Sentencing Act 2026 to exclude rapists and child sex offenders through emergency legislation. They could lay new commencement regulations, delaying the instruction of the early release scheme, and give the new Prime Minister enough time to get his act together.

We have invited the Government to do those things in the motion before the House, and we understand that they will not contest it. After voting for the Sentencing Act and against our amendment to exclude sex offenders from the early release scheme, today they have folded, but they still cannot tell us the plan. Will they bring forward emergency legislation? Will they bring forward new commencement regulations? We know that these Ministers are in office, but not in power, so will the right hon. Member for Makerfield tell us, and the victims of these criminals, what will happen?

We should remember how we got here, for this is an ideologically anti-prison Government, and many of their policies look likely to continue under the new Prime Minister. [Interruption.] The sentencing Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position. I understand why he is anxious; I have seen the tweets that he sent about the right hon. Member for Makerfield, and I am sure that the next Prime Minister has, too. He said he was going to be “worse than Jeremy Corbyn” and had the

“political antennae of a dead cat”.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should say “worse than the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)”.

[Nick Timothy]

Thank you for correcting me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was quoting the tweets so exactly that I forgot my responsibilities.

As I was saying, this is an ideologically anti-prison Government, and many of their policies look likely to continue under the new Prime Minister.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

The hon. Member calls this an “ideologically anti-prison Government”, but in 14 years of Conservative Governments, there was a net increase of 500 prison places. In the very first Division post the King’s Speech in this Parliament, I remember voting to deal with that problem, and we had to vote to reduce sentencing times to deal with that mess; otherwise the criminal justice system would have collapsed. Does he not agree?

[Nick Timothy]

I think the hon. Gentleman would do well to not take the Whips’ questions, when the Whips have just given up, in the face of the wall of opinion in the parliamentary Labour party, and having given ground in this debate.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those early votes to which the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) referred were actually a Trojan horse to allow sex offenders to be released under such schemes? We have brought this motion to the House to make sure that we protect the British public.

[Nick Timothy]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. What I was trying to say gently to the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) was that, if the argument is still that this Government need to let sex offenders out of prison because of a capacity problem, Labour Members will be embarrassed by the policy that is about to be introduced by the new Prime Minister, who agrees with us, not with the hon. Member.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend considers the evolution of the Opposition’s justice policy, might he give consideration to taking the expansion of prisons, or the development of new prisons, out of the ordinary planning arena, as it once was? Prisons should be viewed as elements of critical infrastructure, and our sentencing and detention policy should not be dictated by the availability of square footage.

[Nick Timothy]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Over a period, the construction of prisons has become needlessly expensive and needlessly time-consuming, as has the development of other critical infrastructure in our country. As we come forward with our plans to increase the capacity of our system, we will definitely look at those barriers.

The Prisons Minister says that only a third of prisoners should be locked up. The sentencing Minister says that a pretty big chunk of the prison population should not be there. The Government have legislated to get rid of short-term sentences, effectively decriminalising shoplifting and many knife crimes. They want to reduce sentences for criminals based on their age and, unsurprisingly, their identity. For some, they want to scrap custodial punishment altogether. They want to increase the age of criminal responsibility to 14, so that criminals such as the killers of Jamie Bulger and one of the Fordingbridge gang rapists can avoid criminal trials. They even want to weaken sentences for some murderers.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), the last Conservative Government granted early release, largely in secret, to more than 10,000 prisoners, including domestic abusers and those who posed a risk to children, without putting appropriate safeguards in place, and then they called a general election when the prisons were full. Can the shadow Minister understand why we Labour Members will not take any lectures on criminal justice from the Conservatives?

[Nick Timothy]

The hon. Gentleman resembles one of those Japanese soldiers found in 1950 who were still fighting the second world war. The Whips and the Labour party have given up on this debate, and he is still reading out the planted questions given to him earlier today by the Whips, before they bottled it and folded. [Interruption.] I would be happy to give way again, if the hon. Gentleman wants to keep on with this argument, but he is chuntering from a sedentary position.

The first action of this Prime Minister—the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), if hon. Members can keep up—was to announce that he would let tens of thousands of hardened criminals out of prison early. Between September 2024 and December 2025, under the standard determinate sentence 40 scheme, more than 50,000 prisoners were let out early. It is no surprise, as prison governors have been lining up to tell the Government, that in the rush to let criminals out, more prisoners were released in error than at any other time on record. It is no surprise that prisons are finding it harder to ensure that released prisoners have a plan for housing and work—but that is not the only mess caused by this reckless policy.

Prisoner recalls are at a record high. In fact, more criminals have been recalled to prison than released under SDS40, but Ministers refuse to tell us how many recalled prisoners were let loose through early release. Now the Government are going further. Under the Sentencing Act 2026 and SDS33, thousands of prisoners will be let out after serving just one third of their time. More than 7,000 victims have received letters telling them that the perpetrators of the crimes against them may be set loose. No wonder the Justice Secretary is hiding in his ministerial office, rather than defending his record, or the policy that has now been abandoned.

In January, as this House considered Lords amendments to the Sentencing Act, the Minister told the House that

“nothing in the Bill changes sentences for prisoners convicted of the most serious, heinous crimes”. —[Official Report, 20 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 199.]

We all knew that was nonsense, because when we tabled amendments to exclude from SDS33 those convicted of the most serious offences—rape, sex offences, child sex offences and more—the Government whipped their MPs to vote against us. That would be bad enough on its own terms, but the Government have completely lost control of the process for early release. They do not even know who is scheduled to be released, or when. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) asked Ministers to break down which offenders would be released when, and to disclose what crimes they had committed. The Minister told the House that it was

“not possible to know future release data precisely so far in advance”.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

There is a perpetual uncertainty about this issue, as my hon. Friend describes, but at the heart of it is the distance between the popular expectation of what criminal justice should deliver, and what the Government are putting in place. I am not saying that this began with this Government—there is a more fundamental and existential problem—but, in the end, every time Governments do this kind of thing, people lose faith in the justice of the criminal justice system.

[Nick Timothy]

I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. The statistics show that between 1993 and 2012, our prison population grew very significantly, and through that period, crime fell. It plateaued after 2012, as the population grew, and that was a mistake. The Opposition are willing to accept that that was one of the errors of the coalition Government and the Conservatives’ time in power. We need to move on from that, and we will develop policies so that a future Conservative Government can build the prison capacity that the country needs.

[D0r Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Left liberals may not like this, but it remains the case that the public expect the criminal justice system to exact retribution on those who have offended against society. If we do not do that, then individuals may wish to take the law into their own hands. We do not do that in a civilised country; we expect the state to do that on behalf of society. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we constantly diminish the sentences we hand down to serious and dangerous offenders, society may begin to lose faith in the Government it expects to do that work on its behalf?

[Nick Timothy]

I agree; prison works. It works because it punishes the guilty, gives justice to the innocent and takes dangerous people out of circulation, away from the rest of society, and, in doing so, reduces crime. This is a matter of common sense for most people in the country, but it is a deeply controversial thing to say among many criminologists and policy wonks. I am very clear in my belief that prison works and that we need to use prison far more than we do.

Only last week, when my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) asked the Minister to guarantee that convicted rape gang members would serve their sentences properly, he refused to do so. Lord Timpson, speaking for the Government on Channel 4, went even further:

“It is impossible for us to say exactly who will be released, where and when”.

The first 700 released prisoners are due to walk free on 2 September, and more will follow every month thereafter.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

In view of what my hon. Friend has just said, the constituents of Members across the House just want a clear undertaking that dangerous criminals—rapists and others—will not be set free. The Government have obviously dug themselves into a hole and have thrown in the towel this afternoon. We have a limited amount of time left before the summer recess. Is my hon. Friend in a position to say very clearly, for the benefit of those in this Chamber and outside, that the Opposition are willing to throw our weight in behind the Government if they will make the necessary amendments to win the time that they need to get this right?

[Nick Timothy]

I completely agree. I am happy to say that if the Government want to bring forward emergency legislation to fix this in primary legislation or, if they want to buy themselves a little more time to consider things more fully, to introduce new commencement regulations delaying the introduction of the early release scheme, the Opposition will completely support them in doing that.

For now, however, we do not know. The Government are not in a position to tell us who will be released, what crimes they have committed and when exactly they will be released. When will Ministers know the identity of, and the crimes that have been committed by, those who are due to be released? Are we to wait until they have re-offended, and the details emerge as they are arrested, charged and prosecuted all over again? Is the cost of this ineptitude yet more crime, yet more victims of crime and yet more lives ruined? A Government who cannot tell the public who they are releasing from prison have no business releasing any of these dangerous criminals.

Today, the Government have caved under Conservative pressure, but we still do not know what the policy will be. We have a Minister unable to answer: a political eunuch humiliated by his current boss, the Justice Secretary, and his next boss—if he gets a job—with nothing to say but “Wait for Andy”.

The approach of Ministers to all these concerns—legitimate concerns, shared by people up and down the country—has been to say, “Nothing to see here.” They still tell us that it will all be fine, but they have not had the nerve to ask their MPs to vote on it. The Government say that the criminals they release early will be managed “under strict licence conditions” and can be recalled if those conditions are breached, as though this is some kind of special new initiative. Of course they are released under licence, but the Government refuse to say what those conditions will entail, whether they are new conditions or tougher conditions, what safeguards are in place and what resources will be deployed to ensure that these criminals do not reoffend or disappear from the radar. If they will not even tell us how many prisoners released under SDS40 have been recalled to prison, how can we trust them with what they say about SDS33?

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am a little puzzled by this excuse that offenders can always be recalled if they breach the terms. Presumably, a breach means that there has been a fresh victim of a crime, so it is rather pointless to give that as a reassurance. Does my hon. Friend know what proportion of the prison population is made up of serious sexual or other serious offenders? I cannot believe that it is such a high proportion that even if the prison system were utterly full, they could not release other inmates rather than such serious criminals.

[Nick Timothy]

My right hon. Friend puts his finger on the button. This is what we have been saying, and the Government have been saying in response: “No, this is absolutely necessary. We must release these serious sex offenders otherwise there will be a crisis in the prison system.” It is clear that the right hon. Member for Makerfield—the next Prime Minister—agrees with us, not with them. That is why they have folded in this afternoon’s debate. I feel very sorry for the Minister. It is one man, two guvnors, and he is in a very difficult position. Of course it is possible, even if we accept that we need an early release scheme of the kind the Government are introducing, to exclude the sorts of offenders that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East has described.

As I was saying, if the Government are releasing record numbers of prisoners in error, how can we trust them to get these processes right?

It is easy for debates like this to be lost in statistics, technocratic jargon and legal language, so I will end on this important note. Fiona Goddard was just 14 when she was abused by a rape gang. Seven of her abusers were convicted. In June last year, Fiona received a letter from the Ministry of Justice informing her that her abusers were likely to be eligible soon for early release, having served just half their sentences. Last month she received another letter saying that under the Government’s Sentencing Act, her abusers may now be released after serving just one third of the time she was told they would serve in prison originally.

Fiona and several other victims—Sarah Wilson from Rotherham, Carly and Jessica from Huddersfield, Erin from Dewsbury, and the mother of a victim from Rochdale, who has since died—have written to all Members of the House. Several of those brave women and some others are in the Gallery today. They have asked us, in their words

“to hear the pain behind this letter…support an amendment to the Sentencing Act”

and exclude sex offenders from the early release scheme.

We can only imagine the suffering and torment that these women have experienced. To be told that those who abused them over many years may now be back on the streets long before they were supposed to be is not just disgusting but terrifying to them. It is shameful that the Justice Secretary has refused to come to the House today, and it is ridiculous that the Government have bowed to our argument and accepted our motion without telling us or the victims what they plan to do instead. Victims are left in limbo. Are we going to get emergency legislation? Are we going to get new commencement regulations? Which offences will be excluded from the early release scheme? How is this possible when Ministers previously said that it was not?

The Minister is about to get to his feet, but I am afraid that he has no authority and no idea what will happen next. This dying Government need to be put out of their misery, and we need answers, not evasion, from the only person who can answer—the right hon. Member for Makerfield.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

What we will not do is put our head in the sand, which would lead to another prison capacity crisis, which would lead to another urgent, chaotic early release scheme as we saw under the last Conservative Government time and again. I cannot look victims in the eye and tell them that is good for them or for the country, and I will not do so. That is why, when the Home Secretary was Justice Secretary—

[Nick Timothy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jake Richards]

Let me make some progress first.

The Home Secretary recognised that alongside prison building, there would be a need to reform sentencing, and for that be done above party politics. That is the principal reason why she asked Sir David Gauke, a former Conservative Justice Secretary, to undertake an independent sentencing review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

Absolutely. The hon. Lady’s call for us all to reflect on that will be taken up. I know that the Justice Secretary and the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), who is sitting next to me, will have heard that. There will be further correspondence; it was not a blanket correspondence by any means. The Government and the Probation Service want to engage with victims as much as possible to ensure that their voices are heard every step of the way. I am grateful for the intervention.

[Nick Timothy]

We have brought this motion to the House. The Labour party has accepted that motion—it will not contest it and the House will not divide. Having accepted what we have put in the motion, will the Minister tell us what the plan is to ensure that rapists and sex offenders will not be released, starting from September? Will the Government bring forward emergency legislation before the summer recess? Will they bring forward new commencement regulations—yes or no? The Minister has our commitment of support if he does that. If he is not in a position to say so, because it is up to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) and he does not yet know, the Minister can just say that.

[Jake Richards]

As happened on numerous occasions under Boris Johnson and Theresa May, in Opposition day debates the Government are quite within their rights not to divide on an issue—an Opposition day is an Opposition day.

This Government are dealing with the prison capacity crisis that we inherited. We are facing a situation where, if the Sentencing Act measures are not implemented, in October or November of this year we will be back where we were in July 2024. The Sentencing Act received Royal Assent in January and some of its measures are being implemented from September onwards. The Government will always balance making sure that we have a sustainable prison system and never going back to the crisis that we saw under the Conservatives with public safety and confidence in the system. That will continue under this Prime Minister and under the next Labour Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

That this House calls on the Government to exempt from automatic early release under the provisions of the Sentencing Act 2026 any offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence against an adult or a child, including rape and grooming, or convicted of the attempt, conspiracy, or incitement to commit such offences; further calls on the Government to bring forward legislation to enact this change immediately; and regrets that the Conservative amendment to the Sentencing Act 2026 that would have secured these exemptions was not agreed to.

[Nick Timothy]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. I listened very carefully to the Ministers who opened and closed the debate, and the position appears to be that while the Government Whips feel that this is a proposition that cannot be defended, the Ministers at the Ministry of Justice think that it must be defended. In fact, the Ministers in effect said that, regardless of the result of this vote and regardless of the will of the House being expressed, the policy will continue. Could you advise me on whether this contempt for the will of the House is in keeping with the business and the rules of this place, as well as the ministerial code?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Member has most definitely put his point on the record, but it is not a matter for the Chair. The Table Office can advise him further. No doubt those on the Treasury Bench will also have taken note.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Justice Secretary and his ministerial team say that the attack on jury trials is needed to deal with the backlog in the courts. When the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) takes over and scraps the policy on jury trials, does the Minister predict that court backlogs will get worse?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman mischaracterises the Government’s policy, as so many do. We are preserving jury trials as a cornerstone of British justice, but it is no justice at all if someone is waiting years for that jury trial. When witnesses and complainants pull out of the process and those trials collapse, that is no justice at all, whoever is in charge. The dereliction of duty by the Conservatives—the so-called party of law and order—allowed the Crown court backlog to run out of control. They buried their heads in the sand, but we will not do so. We will take on Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations and make the difficult choices to bring down our backlog and deliver justice for the British people.

[Nick Timothy]

I listened carefully but do not think the Minister answered my question—[Interruption.] We will see, won’t we? I am replying to the Justice Secretary’s comment from a sedentary position. I think the Minister has just made it very difficult for herself to stay in the Ministry of Justice when the right hon. Member for Makerfield takes over. The Government are continuing to say that the attack on jury trials is vital and there is no alternative, but we know that is not what the next leader of the Labour party thinks. He has made it clear that he is going to scrap the policy, so will the Minister spell out what this means? She is saying that the right hon. Member for Makerfield is wrong, isn’t she?

[Sarah Sackman]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to an interview with my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield that took place in December, well before this House voted conclusively on Second Reading. Any ministerial team would have to take on this challenge. Unlike the Conservatives, we will not duck it. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield actually said was that we need to pause and reflect. The evidence base is clear. Sir Brian Leveson offered a blueprint. We cannot bring down the backlog without structural reform—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) says we can. As so often happens, the Conservatives ignore the experts and the evidence. They crashed the justice system, and we know who suffers: it is the British citizen. We will not allow it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Government referred the sentences of the teenage gang rapists who attacked two schoolgirls to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient, but the Government also say that they want to increase the age of criminal responsibility, and the Bar Council has said that age should be 14. That is one year older than the age of one of those rapists—proof that young criminals can commit terrible crimes. Will the Justice Secretary rule out increasing the age of criminal responsibility to 14?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but when the Bar Council do a detailed piece of work, it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to look closely at what it has recommended. That is what I will do in the coming months, and I am sure that when that process has concluded, we can have this discussion in a serious way. I urge the hon. Gentleman to be serious. He often takes to Twitter on these issues, but I think we should take the Bar Council of England and Wales seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Last year, 6,397 knife criminals were sent to prison, and the average sentence was just over eight months. As the Government scrapped almost all sentences of less than a year, will the Justice Secretary say very clearly whether he expects as many knife criminals to go to jail next year as did last year?

[Mr Lammy]

The outrage under the last Government was watching knife crime go up year on year, while the hon. Gentleman was sitting in the Home Office—

[Nick Timothy]

That’s not even true!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Timothy, you get two questions. Can you at least wait half a minute before you jump in?

[Mr Lammy]

It is a serious subject, and I am pleased that after 22 months in office, we have seen falls in knife crime in the last year. We will continue with our knife crime strategy.

[Nick Timothy]

What the Justice Secretary just said about the record of the last Government was factually untrue, and he should withdraw it. He does not want to admit it, but it is his policy to send fewer knife criminals to jail. That is why he just said what he did. His White Paper was announced yesterday, and buried in it, on page 46—he can read it again—is his plan to not just go soft on young criminals, but make others,

“including vulnerable adults and young adults…subject to a different process”.

That is wrong. Can the Justice Secretary rule out weaker sentences, and a target of reducing imprisonment rates for any adult criminals?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman left us with a prison capacity crisis. The last Government had success in reducing the number of young people in prison—he knows it, and the record is there—and I worked with Michael Gove and David Cameron as they set out on that mission. The strategy we published yesterday puts public protection first. There will always be young people who have to be in custody, but we are determined to reduce the number of young people on remand in particular by working with the most vulnerable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

This weekend, two marches came to London: one was condemned by the Justice Secretary; about the other—yet another anti-Israel march—there was not a word. Once again we heard crowds of people demanding intifada revolution and other coded calls for attacks on British Jews. If the Crown Prosecution Service refuses to prosecute the thugs who chant “Globalise the intifada” and other calls for violence, why will the Justice Secretary not change the law so that these people get what they deserve?

[Mr Lammy]

I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that everyone inciting violence against Jewish communities in our country must face the full force of the law. I know he will recognise that I represent the Stamford Hill area of London, with its significant Orthodox Jewish community, and I am grateful that he has raised this. Can I just remind him that the CPS updated its guidance on hate crimes on 5 May, to ensure that people face the law as they should?

Youth Justice

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

It is obvious that we are now in the legacy-hunting stage of this Government. Less a range of exhausted volcanoes, more a row of trampled molehills, Ministers are desperate to be remembered for something. This morning a word cloud was published by the pollsters at More in Common. The public were asked for the Prime Minister’s greatest achievement, and emblazoned across the page, in huge capital letters, was the sad word “Nothing.”

Today’s announcement, however, is a fitting tribute to the Justice Secretary and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). So desperate are they to find the causes of crime that they sometimes forget that their job is to prevent and punish crime itself. The truth is that Labour just does not have it in its DNA to be tough on crime. The Government have let 60,000 criminals out of jail early, they are abolishing short-term sentences—so that almost all shoplifters and the majority of knife criminals will no longer be sent to prison—and they are pretending that they are doing these things because they have to, but they are doing them because they want to.

The Prisons Minister says that only a third of prisoners should be locked up. The Minister for Sentencing, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), says that a pretty big chunk of the overall population should not be in prison, and today’s announcement is more of the same. So I have some specific questions for the Justice Secretary. He wants to increase the age of criminal responsibility to reflect a

“modern understanding of childhood, vulnerability and development”.

From smoking bans to voting rights, this Government have a confused view of childhood, so what should be the age of criminal responsibility?

With a wave of sexual and violent crime committed by illegal immigrants, many of whom pretend to be children, can the Justice Secretary guarantee that those people will not escape justice a second time by giving a fake age to the police? The Government say they will review the function and purpose of criminal courts for child defendants, but the purpose of a criminal court is obvious: to try criminals. Can the Justice Secretary rule out abolishing criminal trials for under-18s?

The Government also say that they want to end lifelong disclosure requirements for the under-18s. Can the Justice Secretary guarantee that those requirements will still apply to people guilty of violent crimes and to prolific offenders?

The Government say they will slash custodial remand for young offenders by a quarter, but remand should be used in response to need, not arbitrary targets. What is the Justice Secretary’s alternative? Will he just send criminals home? Will he stick to that target regardless of the level of violent crime and repeat offending?

The Government want more parenting orders, but this morning the Justice Secretary said that they are not used much at the moment because all judges can do to enforce them is issue a fine. He was unclear on this question. So will Ministers—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman was asked on the radio this morning whether parents who do not comply will face custodial sentences. He fudged that question, so I am asking him to answer it now.

The figures show that young repeat offenders often start with theft and move on to drug offences and violence, yet the Government’s big idea is to stop punishing swathes of crimes committed by under-18s. The gangs who swarm shops to steal goods in places like Oxford Street, Ilford and Clapham do not need to be put on a course; instead, they need clear punishment, which can include prison.

The results of soft-touch liberalism are visible in towns and cities up and down the country, yet the changes that the Justice Secretary is announcing today risk amounting to more of the same. This is a big call. If youth crime goes up as a result, it will be on this Government.

[Mr Lammy]

The Tories have a mixed record when it comes to youth justice and keeping young people out of criminality. We should remember that their local authority spending cuts led to a huge fall in council services for young people—about 70% in real terms. While they were in power, £1 billion was lost, leading to the closure of many youth clubs, a reduction in the outreach work that is vital to keeping young people on the right track, and youth workers being completely undermined. All that early intervention work was stopped—an entire generation sacrificed at the altar of austerity.

As the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) will know—he was at the driving wheel—the Tories also cut 20,000 police officers and 7,000 police community support officers, leading to a collapse in visible neighbourhood policing. On their watch—[Interruption.] Conservative Members really should listen to this. On their watch, more than 1,000 Sure Start centres closed. Early intervention was demolished on their watch.

I said it was a mixed record because there was a fall in the number of first-time entrants into the youth justice system. Figures peaked at around 110,000 back in 2007, but fell to just 7,500 while the Tories were in office in 2023. When they entered government, there were around 2,000 children in youth custody; by the end of their tenure, that had fallen to just over 1,000. Those were great achievements. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman does not want to celebrate those achievements, which began under David Cameron and Michael Gove.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the age of criminal responsibility. As he will know, the Bar Council is consulting on this issue, and I look forward to receiving the conclusions of its work. He also asks about foreign national offenders. We are absolutely clear in this consultation that we will look at the 16 and 17-year-olds who arrive in our country from somewhere else and commit a violent crime; if they do so, I am afraid that they will be deported. We are really clear about that. We have driven up deportation in our country.

The hon. Gentleman asks whether we are abolishing the youth court and the criminal standard. Of course we are not. However, we are consulting on youth intervention courts because, just as we have seen in our family drug and alcohol courts, problem-solving approaches —gripping the young person, their parents and those who work with them; looking at the addiction and mental health issues and giving them support; holding the multidisciplinary teams to account—can really make a difference. We stand by that.

The hon. Member asked about young people on remand. We want to recruit a new generation of specialist foster carers, because it is much better to have a responsible, loving adult—

Victims and Courts Bill

Nick Timothy Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

In a week when the Government have been reprimanded for letting foreign criminals out of prison without proper checks or safeguards, have been found to have done absolutely nothing as a firm that was due to build thousands of prison places went bust 18 months ago, and ended short-term sentences, allowing prolific shoplifters and other criminals to escape prison, it is beyond disappointing that they seek today to overturn perfectly sensible Lords amendments. The amendments would make the criminal justice system more transparent and give victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences.

We must ask: why are this Government so afraid of the public? Why do Ministers not trust the people? Why do they want to keep injustice—from rape gangs, to serious criminals getting away with a few brief years in prison—out of the spotlight? [Interruption.] Labour Members sigh and moan when I raise the rape gangs. That is exactly the mentality that the country is sick of, and it lies behind the failure to prosecute those cases.

We support Lords amendment 2 on expanding the victims code for murder, manslaughter and infanticide abroad. We support Lords amendment 4 to remove clause 12 from the Bill, because that clause will deliver few savings while undermining access to justice. We support Lords amendments 5 and 6, which strengthen the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Amendment 5 introduces an exceptional circumstances clause that allows the deadline to be extended beyond 28 days, and amendment 6 requires the Justice Secretary to ensure that victims and their families are aware of their rights under the scheme. Those are welcome suggestions. I pay tribute to Katie Brett and the rest of Justice for Victims, and to Tracey Hanson, for their campaigning on this front. They have been consistent in making clear that they want meaningful change, not half measures.

Just last week, I wrote to the Attorney General about the case of Mohammed Abdulraziq, who dragged a five-year-old girl off the street so that he could sexually assault her. He was sentenced to only 11 years in prison, and in all probability, he will be out in just seven. Monsters like him need to be kept away from children. The Government’s opposition to these amendments weakens justice and reduces public protection. I heard what the Minister said about looking at legislation in future, and we will hold her to those words.

The failure to trust the people goes not just for the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but for wider transparency in the criminal justice system, and it is on that point that I will focus the rest of my remarks. We Conservatives do trust the people, so we support Lords amendment 1, which entitles victims to free transcripts of route-to-verdict and bail decisions, and Lords amendment 3, which requires the publication of Crown court transcripts of judges’ sentencing remarks, online and for free, within 14 days of a request made by any member of the public.

The Minister explained the Government’s position on those amendments, and amid the verbiage I could discern only excuses. She sounded like the driver of a broken-down train, who, with passengers stranded miles from the nearest station, was doing her best to assure everyone that the train was indeed moving. Of course everyone knows that there is no movement; the train that we are on is entirely stationary. This is an important lesson for the Minister and other members of the Government: the repetition of fiction does not make something fact. We can all see exactly what is and is not happening.

I want to explain why this is so important. Of course, we want to see how the provisions of the Sentencing Act are implemented, but it is simply not acceptable for victims to be charged as much as £7,000 for a transcript. It is vital that we allow transparency, to make it easier for victims, journalists and the wider public to see what is going on in our courts and detect patterns. We know from too many tragedies, and too many cover-ups, that sunlight is always the best disinfectant.

Let us consider the Courtsdesk scandal. When the Justice Secretary tried to shut down that vital, searchable archive of court hearings, he caused an outcry. Before Courtsdesk, official court listings matched reality just 4.2% of the time. Two thirds of courts routinely heard cases that the media never knew about. From crimes committed by illegal immigrants in asylum hotels and weak sentences for paedophiles, to people dragged through the courts for breaking lockdown rules years after the pandemic and offending by convicted criminals who should have been tagged but were not, Courtsdesk helped journalists to join the dots, securing justice for victims and exposing failures in policy. I still want to know why the Justice Secretary wanted to delete that archive, and why Ministers blamed Courtsdesk for a serious data breach, when documents released since show that the Ministry of Justice considered the breach low risk and not worthy of a referral to the Information Commissioner. I will give way if the Minister wishes to explain. [Interruption.]

[Alex Davies-Jones]

rose—

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The shadow Secretary of State will know that Courtsdesk is a private company that provides a subscription-based specialist data platform aggregating magistrates court data and offering specialist services to journalists. The proposal did not stop data sharing with Courtsdesk at all, and it was not about reducing transparency. It was merely a commercial sensitivity proposal to take the archive offline temporarily while we determined new contracts. It was not about transparency.

[Nick Timothy]

I think the Minister has been taking lessons from the Prime Minister. She may as well have been reading the phonebook in answering the question. [Interruption.] Well, the answer that she just gave was completely unsatisfactory. There was an attempt to delete the archive.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

If there was no intention to delete the data, why did the Chair of the Justice Committee write to the Lord Chancellor asking him to stop the deletion of that data?

[Nick Timothy]

That is a good point. The Minister has her side of the argument, but on the other side is the Justice Committee, pretty much every journalist involved in crime and court reporting, the company involved and Opposition parties of all colours. I think we know what is going on. I was relieved that, after the Conservative campaign to save Courtsdesk, the Justice Secretary bottled it and backed down. He should do the same today by backing Lords amendments 1 and 3.

The lack of transparency in our criminal justice system explains some of the darkest moments in our history. The crimes of the rape gangs were despicable. They were racially and religiously aggravated, and victims were targeted because of their vulnerability. The criminals were not just the rapists but all those who colluded and were complicit in those depraved, sustained attacks: police officers, social workers, local officials and councillors. Some were guilty because they abused those poor girls themselves, some because they helped others to abuse them, and some because they had the chance to stop it but refused to do so. Some were motivated by malice, and some chose to tolerate evil because they did not want to challenge the official narrative about diversity and multiculturalism.

With the rape gangs, and with other acts of corruption and criminality, we know that the politics of communalism is so often lurking. In parts of our country, clan culture is corrupting our public institutions and the rule of law itself. As we saw in the west midlands recently, the authorities chose not only to turn a blind eye, but to make themselves the willing tools of those they should confront. If we want to confront all these things, and if we want to save our country from corruption and ruin, we need victims of crime, journalists, campaigners and the general public to be given the information that they need to expose the truth. We need the Government not to hinder this noble cause, but to use their power to ensure that justice is done. That is why we need far more transparency in the justice system, and why today we will vote in favour of Lords amendments 1 and 3.